Flavor Mish-mash and favored classes (what 4e got wrong)

I think it's especially worth noting that you seem to heavily overstate the importance of racial stat bonuses, which aren't as big a deal as some will have you believe. This failure of your argument is especially obvious where you consider Dwarves not to make good Defenders.

Dwarves make decent defenders because of some of their traits and feats, but they don't grant a bonus to any of the defender "keyed attack" stats (Str for fighters and wardens, Str/Cha for paladins, Int for swordmage). Their con bonus helps axe/hammer-fighters, earth wardens and shielding swordmages, and wis helps both paladins and fighters (Combat challenge) so they aren't as bad as I stated.

Still, dragonborn, genasi and goliaths all make equally good if not better defenders.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The mechanics rarely seemed to support the game fluff in the past, why start now? :D

It is certainly possible (if not highly likely) that your own knowledge exceeds mine.


So, have you examples of this? (In the complete expectation that you do!).


***Aberzanzorax waiting to see how elves weren't wizards in the past... or Dwarves not fighters, or etc. etc. etc.***
 

Complete books of elves says it I believes. The 2ed realms has elven high magic. It is in the earlier games as well, even if the mechanics might disagree.

FR Mythals, anyone? Myth Drannor? Lost Elven cities?

Yep, despite their level limits, somehow, Elves managed to have some pretty awesome mojo.
 

You guys do realize that the elves have essentially been split into two races right? "Magic elves" are now the eladrin and "Wilderness elves" are now the elves. 4e "Elves" are no longer the "Elves" of previous editions.
 


I've had way too many decent 16/16 and 18/14 characters of all jobs and stripes to believe that the "racially favored flavor" classes, that near-always get very nice racial-only feats to assist in playing them, aren't able to be played.

Math-wise, a 16 is a fair number in the attack score, especially if you "hit more" on the secondary-stat based attacks- like a +2 2d6 Maul vs. a +3 1d10 Bastard Sword. 18/16 is just not so dominant to be "necessary to play".
 

Said before, bears repeating:

The high elves? Gray elves? Silvanesti, Qualinesti, whatever else? Fighter/Magic-users? Top-notch arcanists? We call them "eladrin" now!

And eladrin do make quality wizards. And all manner of sword-wielding magic users. So... yeah.
 

I'd have to agree with those saying the fluff matches up with the stats about as well as it ever did, with the occasional oddity.

I don't consider any race that gets at least one stat bonus useful to their class to be suboptimal. I mean, lets look at Dwarf Fighter vs Dwarf Shaman.

Dwarf Fighter--no bonus to strength, but Con and Wis are both important secondary stats for fighters, especially those that use hammers and axes. Second Wind as a minor action and forced movement resistance are both highly useful for defenders, as is Dwarven Weapon training and various other racial feats that emphasize toughness and melee.

Dwarf Shaman, gets a bonus to both primary stats (Bear Shaman) but the Shaman is a ranged support character who avoids getting "stuck in" whenever possible, making most of the dwarven racial traits and feats situational at best.

Advantage Dwarf Fighter, imo. A simple +1 attack/damage is not always superior to the full range of racial abilities, feats, and paragon classes.

You could say much the same about Tieflings and Warlocks. Even without the Con bonus, I'd rather roll up a Tiefling Infernal Warlock over, say, a Half-Elf anyday. Hellfire Blood largely negates the lack of con bonus, Int bonus boosts main secondary stat along with AC, and charisma bonus rounds out the 3rd most important stat. Throw in stuff like fire resistance, infernal wrath, and the +1 bonus vs bloodied enemies vs the Half-elves dilente ability, group diplomacy, and team work feats, and the Tiefling comes out way ahead.
 

The stat bumps races get should be, ultimately, unrelated to their cultural traits and tendencies that favor one class over another. That was one thing well recognized by 3e's favored classes. When it comes to nature vs nurture, if you want to be reasonably realistic, nurture usually wins when dealing with intelligent species.

But when it comes to gamers, the rationality of the numbers usually wins out. And in this case, I think 4e exacerbates the problem by trying too hard to keep near a particular ratio of success - it's hard for any factors that feed into attack/defense bonuses to compensate for any that lag behind without allowing them to potentially run amok when no factors lag. This is why, in 3e, stat boost items are both a benefit and a bane. They allow characters with mediocre stats to compete over their natural talent, but they also help exceptional talents become overbearing.
 

Dwarves make decent defenders because of some of their traits and feats, but they don't grant a bonus to any of the defender "keyed attack" stats (Str for fighters and wardens, Str/Cha for paladins, Int for swordmage). Their con bonus helps axe/hammer-fighters, earth wardens and shielding swordmages, and wis helps both paladins and fighters (Combat challenge) so they aren't as bad as I stated.

Still, dragonborn, genasi and goliaths all make equally good if not better defenders.

Err..yes, but what about the flavor of Dragonborn, Genasi, and Goliaths would suggest they aren't well suited to defendering as well?

Dragonborn make great Paladins and good Fighters--Perfect!

Goliaths are awesome Fighters and Wardens, and workable as avenging Paladins--Great!

Genasi only really excell as Swordmages and Tactical Warlords, but their strength bonus makes them respectable for other defender types. Again, no problem from where I'm sitting.
 

Remove ads

Top